I've avoided the Schiavo threads, but I want to understand something.

As I understand it, this case is not about whether or not Terri Schiavo *could* or *should* be maintained on the feeding tube. It is over whether or not she *wanted* to be, right? So when people try to argue that Michael Schiavo is "trying to kill Terri" and that "her parents could/want to take care of her", they are missing the point, aren't they? Yes, it would be easy enough to just turn care over to her parents, but if she didn't want that then that wouldn't be fair to her.

So to me this is not a case of bioethics that the fundamentalists seem to think it is. It is a case to determine whether or not Terri made statements while she was still of sound mind and body indicating that she would not wish to be maintained in a vegetative state. Thus, it becomes and issue of personal choice, not life vs. murder. If she did indeed voice her wishes that she didn't want to live like this at a time when such a situation was hypothetical, then her wishes should be honored. Multiple courts and judges have ruled that there is enough evidence to conclude that this is the case.

So then all these protesters aren't really "standing up for life", but are trying to impose their will on Terri, who decided for herself before her injury that she wouldn't want to live like this.

Am I wrong about any of this? I'm not as well educated on this case as many of you. Please let me know if I'm off track. I'll be back in a bit to check on the responses.

And a lot of those people are opposed to the right to die, even in the case of a living will.

did not want this'

But this has also become a constitutional issue, the moment the congress butted its nose

It is also a calculated attack on the judiciary... and independent judiciary

is obviously a states rights case. The Supreme Court of the Florida had already decided this case. All the laws of Florida had been abided by.
Since the results did not satisfy the "right to lifers", they decided to go over the heads of the State courts, just as they did during the 2000 Presidential elections. This just demonstrates their incredible hypocrisy. When it suits their ends, the states have the ultimate say over Federal decisions, but when it does not suit what they want, they choose to try to overturn state decisions by going to Federal jurisdiction. How much more hypocritical can you be?

There is the additional matter of how much intrusion into your personal life do you want the Federal government to have? Strange isn't it that it is the Repukes that are on the side of the government having more power to intrude into your private life,between the privacy of husband and wife. The great supporters of the "sanctity of marriage" are now trying to say that the husband does not have the ultimate say in decisions concerning his wife.

Her opinion should be heard the loudest. I believe the court
have determined her wishes correctly.

I also think an argument could actually be made that she should
be allowed to pass even if her wishes were unknown.

Her brain is mush, her EEG is flat. He has no higher brain function. I think it is reasonable
to assume nobody would ever want to live like that unless they have given explicit instructions
that they would.

Just my 2c.

But since this case is not on the merits of keeping someone alive even if they have almost no quality of life, but on Terri's wishes, then I don't see what the argument is.

Three witnesses testified that on multiple occassions Terri expressed that she would not want to be kept alive with no hope of recovery.

Her husband after working tirelessly to help her determined with her doctor that she had no hope of recovery, so he decided to have the tube removed.

http://floridahealthinfo.hsc.usf.edu/TheresaSchiavoFina...

SCHIAVO's parents admit they would not honor her wishes:
From page 14 the 38 page report commissioned by Jeb Bush:

Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive . . . at any and all costs.

Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open-heart surgery.

Within the testimony, as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.

I've been watching coverage on all channels. Terri's friends and family are saying Terri indicated the opposite of what Michael did, that she wanted to be artificially kept alive. I don't believe that, but Michael is a shady character. It was reported that he bought life insurance on her before her heart attack, from the woman he is now living with. He says Terri and he were happy and planning a family, while her friend says she was planning to divorce him and get a place with her. Michael had alot of money for her rehabilitation, but most of it went to lawyers he sought in trying to pull the plug.
A healthy young woman had a massive heart attack, and there's no evidence she was bulemic. Her husband comes across as a heartless arse. Is she allegedly can't feel anything, why didn't he just didn't turn custody over to her parents? Something stinks here. But Terri will soon be with the Lord, and she will be out of this mind and body. God Bless her and prayers for her family.

M

A hearty welcome to DU !! :hi:

Thank you for the welcome. I am an independent and agree with you guys most of the time. But I will speak up, respectfully, when I disagree.

M

So what is the source of those lies you've just told?

I told "lies?" I presented what has been reported, on MSNBC, Fox and CNN. We don't know who is lying, that's the only fact here. There are two sides to every story.

M

If you believe what your teevee tells you to believe, you're beyond help.

Funny how our media works huh?

Not only do I watch MSNBC, Fox and CNN, I also watch CBN, Link tv and Democracy now. I draw from all those sources and make my own determinations. I don't believe "political parties" lie, people lie. There are honest and dishonest people in both major parties. When one only gets news from one source, they become brainwashed.

M

Each of those Hannity talking points has been debunked.

Listen, neither one of us is in a position to decide who is lying. I am neither a liberal or a conservative extremist. I'm a moderate, free thinker. Conservatives "assume" the Schindlers are telling the truth and liberals assume Schiavo is. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Frankly I don't like the guy (seems like an arsehole, lets be honest) or his lawyer.

M

Most of the American populace would describe itself as moderate, even (gasp) Republicans. And, yes, most lawyers as well as all politicians, given that they are advocates of particular point of view, are as honest as it suits them to be, and not more. The basis that I have to use to determine who is lying comes from experience. The recent usurpers of power and position in the Republican party have shown the remarkable propensity for lying at the every opportunity, when even a little thinking and projecting into the future would demand at least a veneer of honesty. If I see a cow in the middle of the road and my wife sees that same cow, no amount of of argument, by someone in "authority," will convince me that it's a new school bus.

This government, which even created a department of lies and pointed to it with pride, has managed to produce to produce such an aura of disinformation that no discerning person can accept a single statement from them without checking. They steadfastly refuse to tell the truth even when it would benefit them to do so.

With this atmosphere obtaining, the voice of the opposition, although it, too, needs checking, seems like the veritable fountain of truth. The case being made for the discontinuing of life support seems to hang together far better than the obvious political opportunism of those opposing. The piling on that came from the radical right, with absolutely no actual knowledge, has further eroded (if that's possible) the value of the "conservative" mantle these impostors have donned.

This is not to presume that I agree with the decision, moreover, coward that I am, I am secretly glad that it's not my responsibility and fondly hope I will never have to make such a difficult choice. I have tried to see both sides of this issue and, emotionally, that's very easy to do.

Because this is, now, such a common problem, and has had to be faced by thousands upon thousands of people, laws, mostly similar, have evolved in each state to handle the protocol of such a momentous task, as well as on whom the responsibility falls. The progressives were, in effect, blindsided by the outrageous, bitter attack from the mafia-in-charge and the attempt to turn what is, in fact, a solemn, sorrowful, even onerous duty into an opportunity for personal aggrandizement and 'us versus them' political hay making.

In conclusion, faced with the observable track records of the loudest screamers, my "middle of the road" moderation moves way to the left. The immediate family circle that actually has to make this decision should be left alone to do so. Even if the participants yell for help, we (outside the courts) should not, we must not, interfere. Our responsibility is to give them the support they need to get themselves through this and to learn what we need for the time when we, too, are in similar circumstances.

Sorry, but all these smears are fabrications.

Think Swiftboat Liars.

I know Hannity is a slime, but most of what has been said on his show (and others) cannot be "proven" to be fabrications, though I am convinced half are. What about the other half? How can we say one person is telling the truth and everyone else is lying? I cannot and will not fault Terri's family for trying to save her life, because I know it comes from genuine love and beleif she can be rehabilitated. I have great compassion for them, as a human being, despite their perceived politics.

Mind you, I am with you on this issue, and believe Terri would not want to go on in this way.

M

she can be rehabilitated"?

Seriously - how can you KNOW that?

Mrs. Schiavo is known to have made statements according to the final court findings, about her deisres concerning life support three times in her life. Her parents list one at the age of 11. Her husband and his family members note statements at the age of 24. It is quite reasonable to think that someone could have changed her mind about something like this between the ages of 11 and 24, right? and statements made as an adult carry more weight than those of a child, do they not?

Are you married? if so, imagine that your wife/husband told you something, after your marriage, that she/he did not want to be kept alive by artificial means in this sort of situation. Her parents disagree. The worst happens and you are put into Mr. Schiavo's shoes. Do you honor your spouse's wishes or simply refuse to honor them and deny her, turning her over to her parents?

which honors her?

My uncle and I have discussed this. If he fell victim to something like this, I would have to convince his daughter (we don't like each other) what his wishes are. I think that's part of the problem. The Schindlers and Schiavos are poltically and religiously opposite. Both laweyers are extremists for their causes. I saw Schiavo's attorney promoting an anti-religious pov on a religious program, and the guy who is all over the tube for the Schindlers is a lawyer for Pat Robertson's org.


M

"anti religious"?

I've been watching coverage on all channels. Terri's friends and family are saying Terri indicated the opposite of what Michael did, that she wanted to be artificially kept alive.


Yes, Mrs Schindler IMPEACHED HERSELF in her testimony and said that at the age of twenty she and TS were discussing Karen Ann Quinlan. It turned out via MRS SCHINDLER's testimony that that conversation took place when TS was 11 or 12.

The SChindler's also testified that even if they KNEW she did not want to be kept alive they would NOT honor their ADULT daughter's wishes.


I don't believe that, but Michael is a shady character. It was reported that he bought life insurance on her before her heart attack, from the woman he is now living with.
DO you have a scintilla of evidence to back up that claim?

He says Terri and he were happy and planning a family, while her friend says she was planning to divorce him and get a place with her.

And there is no corroboration of such

Michael had alot of money for her rehabilitation, but most of it went to lawyers he sought in trying to pull the plug.

After the parents dragged him to court 2 dozen times, does that surpise anyone?

A healthy young woman had a massive heart attack, and there's no evidence she was bulemic.

There's a BOATLOAD of evidence. Carriers don't pay out a million dollars in malpractice on incorrect diagnoses which would clear their insured of malpractice.


Her husband comes across as a heartless arse. Is she allegedly can't feel anything, why didn't he just didn't turn custody over to her parents?

Why did her parents send her back to an institution after 3 weeks of trying to care for her?

Why as of 1997 was Michael the ONLY party to be visiting her daily?


Something stinks here. But Terri will soon be with the Lord, and she will be out of this mind and body. God Bless her and prayers for her family.

At least you have one point beyond rebuttal.

go to the source documents.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

You'll see how you've been misinformed.

Sid

He asked the court to determine what Terri would have wanted. They found that she would not have wanted to be kept alive in this state.

Do you have a link to that?

On edit: Thanks, that was an informative link.

Go here (he's an impartial lawyer...this is a good site):

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#qanda

Then to the question, "Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?"

the family friends and parents had nothing against michael until the settlement. if they thought he didnt love her, caused this or was in anyway responsible, i dont think they would have waited 7 years and allow michael to live in the condo with them during terri's therapy to see if they could help her.

it was only when there was a fight about the money and parents felt they should get some, that accusations about michael were made. 7 years later

reconcile that with the story told.

is that after the first trial when it was determined that Terri didn't want to live on life support it was forever out of Michael Schiavo's hands. Now the court is bound to carrying out her wishes, even if Micheal wanted to accept one of the million dollar "bribes" to keep Terri alive it would do no good.

I have heard that it's been to trial 22 times, each time with the same result.

and of course that number is probably alot higher now.

if someone else were to be given guardianship of Terri, they would be legaly bound to withdraw the feeding tube per Terri's wish not to have wanted it.

than to deal in boring old facts!

I don't have a link, but in one of the testimonies, they said they didn't know what her wishes were and didn't care. Even if she had a living will, they would still fight this till the end.

this issue clearly shows the effect of propaganda on the public. I hear them call in radio shows .. and they call it murder.. which I would agree.. IF I believed what they believe!! Its the war of facts, Delay called her "Lucid".. Frist said "she apearts responsive to me" and so on... These are the people feeding LIES to anyone that will fall for it! No one that knows the truth has a problem with what Micheal Schiavo is doing (in fact some wish she could just been put to rest, rather than the starvation death). Court have cleary stated that she wouldnt want to live like this.. and frankly.. I dont think anyone would.. but once again, the opposition BELIEVES she is aware and her condition could improve! (they then look for a reason why Micheal would do this.. so fox and others had no problem feeding them ideas... I feel Mr. Schiavo)


www.starvethefox.com help stop fox! are you helping fund them??!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

this is exactly the point. you are right on. this is why it is so important to everyone across the country. it interfers with our individual choice, it interfers with mate to be our voice

When George Bush was governor of Texas, he signed a bill into law which gave the decision of life and death to the health care industry. If the hospital determined that the patient would not improve, and the family could not afford the care, then hospital can withdraw treatment after 10 days. During this time, the family is expected to find a hospital that will treat their child. If no facility is found, then the hospital can withdraw treatment (remove a feeding tube) even against the family's wishes.

After signing this Texas bill into law, supporting the execution of retarded children, killing 100,000 Iraqi's and 1,600 Americans to advance his families business interests in the middle east, why are George Bush and the Neo-Cons suddenly interested in a single dying woman? I feel the answer is clear.

These actions amount to a shameless power grab designed to dissolve the Constitutional separation of powers which exist between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our government. George Bush wants the Federal Courts to be beholden to his wishes and is using this emotional issue to energize the fundamentalists into pressing support for his judicial appointments.

The bushtapo is testing their power now that they control both the Executive and Legislative branches with their aggressive design on the Judicial branch. They are attempting to put the Federal Government under the control of a small extreme faction of the republican party by perusing this issue under such false pretenses. They are daring people to publicly call him insane. Those who do will be burned at the stake, and the complete power of this extremist faction of the Republican party over every aspect of our Federal Government, and your lives will come to pass.

The Judiciary should not be controlled by emoting religous fanatics.

If they pull off this fraud, then the days of religious extremists
actively sacrificing our virgins to the Volcano's of religious emotionalism will have surely returned.